Flight prices need to rise to tackle aviation emissions, experts warn

Climate advisers are sounding the alarm, urging for a tax on flights to rein in the surge of aviation activity as the Government mulls over its airport expansion blueprints.

The Climate Change Committee has laid out its latest recommendations for slashing carbon emissions, calling on the Government to aim for an 87% reduction from 1990 figures by 2040, with a specific target for aviation to cut emissions by 17% relative to 2023 levels. The committee is adamant that the aviation sector must zero out its emissions by 2050 to align with the UK's overarching climate goals, and insists that the true cost of reducing the industry's pollution footprint should be mirrored in flight pricing.

This could mean a hefty hike in airfares; for instance, a return journey to Alicante might see a £150 increase, while a New York round-trip could soar by £300 come 2050. The lion's share of emission cuts between 2038 and 2042 is expected to come from "managing" the burgeoning demand for air travel, complemented by the adoption of sustainable aviation fuels, advancements in aircraft efficiency, and the development of hybrid and electric planes.

To temper the appetite for flights, the committee suggests options like raising air passenger duty or introducing a frequent flyer levy—measures that have found favour with a citizens' panel convened by the committee. Additionally, the committee points out that curbing airport expansion and capacity could serve as a "supplementary role" in dampening demand.

The committee's latest recommendations suggest a modest uptick in passenger demand for flights, projecting an increase of just 2% by 2035, 10% by 2040, and 28% by 2050 compared to levels in 2025. They also anticipate advancements in technology capable of extracting carbon from the atmosphere to help mitigate the environmental impact of air travel.

Prof Piers Forster, serving as the interim chair of the committee, noted a shift from their previous stance in 2020, which cautioned against any net rise in airport capacity. However, he clarified: "We are still explicit that if the industry isn't investing enough in the alternative technologies, and if we're beginning to see a big increase in aviation demand, then the Government would have to introduce additional policies to restrict demand, and one of their policies could be for restricting airport capacity."

Environmental advocates have voiced concerns over the reliance on sustainable aviation fuel, labelling such optimism as "dangerously optimistic" and stressing that airport expansion does not align with climate objectives. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander faces a looming Thursday deadline to decide on Gatwick Airport's proposal to convert its emergency runway for regular operations, potentially accommodating an extra 100,000 flights annually. Additionally, she must announce by April 3 whether Luton's proposed expansion will proceed.

Plans are in the pipeline to boost Bedfordshire's airport capacity, transforming it from being able to handle 18 million annual passengers to a whopping 32 million by 2043, all while operating with just a single runway. Meanwhile, Chancellor Rachel Reeves recently expressed support for expanding Heathrow with a third runway during a speech focused on growth last month.

The renowned west London hub is gearing up to lay out comprehensive plans before the government when summer unfolds. However, Mike Childs, who leads policy at Friends of the Earth, had his reservations: "Rather than championing aviation expansion, the Government should introduce a frequent flyers levy to curb the excessive flights taken by a minority of wealthy people each year, without harming the annual family holiday."

He continued to highlight the environmental perspective: "Airport expansion remains incompatible with meeting our climate targets. Technological investment is crucial but relying on solutions that are not workable at scale to justify a third runway at Heathrow, or expansion at Gatwick, would be a foolish and reckless gamble."